4 ms·

This is something that has been on my mind a lot over the past few years, having gone through an ugly, costly divorce and having watched friends stay in rotten

This is something that has been on my mind a lot over the past few years, having gone through an ugly, costly divorce and having watched friends stay in rotten marriages. Relationships come in a lot of forms, and we lack vocabulary, laws, and social acceptance for many of them. My mother's partner of more than ten years is still legally married to someone else, because to divorce would set off financial destruction for both parties. My "partpanion" and I call each other that because partner is so clinical, companion so incomplete, other terms like "significant other" a strange twist of the language. Can a seventy-year old really be a "girlfriend / boyfriend"? We will likely never marry, and to make things odder, "domestic partnership" can now only be made legally binding here for older people, presumably for the purpose of making it easier to deal with things like medical-power-of-attorney in the event of poor health. And then there are all the people I know who stay in terrible marriages either because of kids, money, religion... I kinda like some of these examples from the article that are so "live and let live" accepting of humanity, so long as we are good to each other and providing nurture to any children produced. Until that time, the lawyers sure make out like bandits.

Thlom 8y ago
In Scandinavia we have the term "kjæreste" which roughly translates to "most beloved". When I think about I believe it's only in Norway and Sweden we have that word. In Sweden they have the word ælskling which means much the same thing. Both used in much the same way as boyfriend/girlfriend, but without the gender and without the implied youth so can be used by both young and old.
- poulsbohemian 8y ago
  Love it! I think this moment is the birth of a new English loanword.
  - therein 8y ago
    It would be if `kjæreste` didn't have `æ` in it and were easy to pronounce for an English speaker.
    - cat199 8y ago
      The glyph `æ` is part of the english language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86#English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86#English generally it is not used in the us, as we have dropped it.
- implying 8y ago
  The Danes have this word too, I found it missing from English vocabulary while learning the language.
- hikarudo 8y ago
  Would "dearest" be close to "kjæreste"?
  - simongr3dal 8y ago
    Spot on.
0x00000000 8y ago
>"domestic partnership" can now only be made legally binding here for older people In some places it can be made legally binding against your will https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palimony_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palimony_in_the_United_States
- poulsbohemian 8y ago
  Yes! That's why I think our legal situation in Washington state is such a mess. I found at least 8 cases in my own divorce where the law was just plain stupid and harmful. I'm glad that homosexuals can now marry, but when that law went into effect, it also broke the existing domestic partnership laws and created a huge grey area. My lady friend and I are forming an implicit partnership, but we have no legal way to formalize it - and as you point out, if something were to go sideways in the future, you can be held accountable as though it were "legal" but without there being codified law making the rules-of-the-game clear.
patmcc 8y ago
>> My mother's partner of more than ten years is still legally married to someone else, because to divorce would set off financial destruction for both parties. This is something I really don't understand. If both parties want the divorce and can agree on any asset splits, a divorce costs whatever the filing fee is. A few hundred dollars and you're done.
- poulsbohemian 8y ago
  Wouldn't that be nice? No - marriage over 20 years, spousal support for life. Money came from an inheritance? Not part of the so-called 50/50 split. Kids involved? Are you male? Get ready to get screwed - either you go bankrupt to get your kids or you lose your kids. Are the significant assets at stake? Then these things are never simple, and if they are the lawyers are going to make sure that they aren't because they want their share of the action. I am in full agreement with you - the majority of divorces should be simple. They should be a form you complete in a clerks office. But that's not how it actually goes, unless both parties are very, very agreeable, and even then you'd better hope the judge is in a good mood and doesn't overrule what you've both agreed to (no I'm not kidding).
  - poulsbohemian 8y ago
    A downvote, really? Must be a lawyer in the crowd. Having just finished spending $15,000 and two years of my life on this, I'm not exactly happy with our legal system.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    Inheritance isn't considered community property. It is the sole property of the heir spouse except to the extent explicitly gifted to the union. That aside, assets can be divided up without involving lawyers. Indeed, hiring lawyers is the pretty much the one thing you can do to guarantee that the divorce will be acrimonious, because the lawyers could care less about your (or your soon-to-be-ex spouse's) feelings. I've never seen a judge throw out an amicable divorce settlement drawn up by parties without their own lawyers. At most, they required the divorcing parties to have the agreement looked over by a lawyer to make sure it satisfied necessary legal requirements.

Thlom 8y ago

In Scandinavia we have the term "kjæreste" which roughly translates to "most beloved". When I think about I believe it's only in Norway and Sweden we have that word. In Sweden they have the word ælskling which means much the same thing. Both used in much the same way as boyfriend/girlfriend, but without the gender and without the implied youth so can be used by both young and old.

poulsbohemian 8y ago
Love it! I think this moment is the birth of a new English loanword.
- therein 8y ago
  It would be if `kjæreste` didn't have `æ` in it and were easy to pronounce for an English speaker.
  - cat199 8y ago
    The glyph `æ` is part of the english language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86#English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86#English generally it is not used in the us, as we have dropped it.
implying 8y ago
The Danes have this word too, I found it missing from English vocabulary while learning the language.
hikarudo 8y ago
Would "dearest" be close to "kjæreste"?
- simongr3dal 8y ago
  Spot on.

0x00000000 8y ago

>"domestic partnership" can now only be made legally binding here for older people In some places it can be made legally binding against your will https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palimony_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palimony_in_the_United_States

poulsbohemian 8y ago
Yes! That's why I think our legal situation in Washington state is such a mess. I found at least 8 cases in my own divorce where the law was just plain stupid and harmful. I'm glad that homosexuals can now marry, but when that law went into effect, it also broke the existing domestic partnership laws and created a huge grey area. My lady friend and I are forming an implicit partnership, but we have no legal way to formalize it - and as you point out, if something were to go sideways in the future, you can be held accountable as though it were "legal" but without there being codified law making the rules-of-the-game clear.

patmcc 8y ago

>> My mother's partner of more than ten years is still legally married to someone else, because to divorce would set off financial destruction for both parties. This is something I really don't understand. If both parties want the divorce and can agree on any asset splits, a divorce costs whatever the filing fee is. A few hundred dollars and you're done.

poulsbohemian 8y ago
Wouldn't that be nice? No - marriage over 20 years, spousal support for life. Money came from an inheritance? Not part of the so-called 50/50 split. Kids involved? Are you male? Get ready to get screwed - either you go bankrupt to get your kids or you lose your kids. Are the significant assets at stake? Then these things are never simple, and if they are the lawyers are going to make sure that they aren't because they want their share of the action. I am in full agreement with you - the majority of divorces should be simple. They should be a form you complete in a clerks office. But that's not how it actually goes, unless both parties are very, very agreeable, and even then you'd better hope the judge is in a good mood and doesn't overrule what you've both agreed to (no I'm not kidding).
- poulsbohemian 8y ago
  A downvote, really? Must be a lawyer in the crowd. Having just finished spending $15,000 and two years of my life on this, I'm not exactly happy with our legal system.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  Inheritance isn't considered community property. It is the sole property of the heir spouse except to the extent explicitly gifted to the union. That aside, assets can be divided up without involving lawyers. Indeed, hiring lawyers is the pretty much the one thing you can do to guarantee that the divorce will be acrimonious, because the lawyers could care less about your (or your soon-to-be-ex spouse's) feelings. I've never seen a judge throw out an amicable divorce settlement drawn up by parties without their own lawyers. At most, they required the divorcing parties to have the agreement looked over by a lawyer to make sure it satisfied necessary legal requirements.